Nancy Mace is no stranger to standing up for herself. It’s a required trait when working as a teenager at a South Carolina Waffle House, attending the Citadel, and more recently defying your party to vote for the release of the Epstein files. She’s gone out on a limb again with an effort to release records related to congressional sexual misconduct and harassment, including settlements that were allegedly paid with taxpayer money.
The push came in response to allegations that Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) had an affair with a congressional staffer who later died by suicide, after sexually explicit text messages between them surfaced publicly. Gonzales initially denied the affair but has since admitted to the relationship, calling it “a lapse in judgment,” and has dropped his reelection bid under pressure from House Republican leadership. The House Ethics Committee has opened a formal investigation.
The rules that apply to you don’t always seem to apply to the people who write them — and the recent vote on Capitol Hill did little to change that impression. The House (1) voted to scuttle the bill on a bipartisan basis, with members on both sides of the aisle closing ranks to send it to a committee which has already signaled its plans to kill the measure.
Opponents argued the resolution was rushed and could do more harm than good — the Ethics Committee warned it could chill victim cooperation in ongoing investigations, and several members, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), said the text lacked adequate protections for survivors and risked publicizing unsubstantiated allegations without victim consent.
It was a jarring moment, particularly in light of the relentless public pressure to finally bring the full Epstein files to light. But when the spotlight searches for accountability in Congress, its members are remarkably adept at dimming the lights.
The problem goes far beyond misconduct settlements. Critics say elected representatives aren’t just avoiding accountability — in many cases they may also be enriching themselves in ways unavailable to the rest of the country. When lawmakers appear to trade on privileged information, it raises serious concerns about market integrity and the public trust that your retirement savings depend on. And when their portfolios are tied to the industries they regulate, it’s fair to ask whether the policies they support are always designed to serve you.
Should the people who set tax policy, regulate industries, and receive classified national security briefings be allowed to trade individual stocks?
Most Americans say no. A 2023 University of Maryland poll (2) found that 86% of voters supported banning members of Congress from trading stocks. And yet, more than a decade after the passage of the STOCK Act of 2012, which was supposed to prevent lawmakers from profiting off nonpublic information, the practice continues largely unchecked.
The STOCK Act (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) requires members of Congress to disclose stock trades within 45 days. But violations are routine and penalties are essentially symbolic. A 2022 investigation by Business Insider found that 78 members of Congress or their spouses violated the STOCK Act between 2021 and 2022 alone. The typical fine? A mere $200 (3).
To put that in perspective, a parking ticket in Washington, D.C. can cost you $100. Breaking federal securities disclosure law, apparently, costs about the same as two of those.
To their credit, some lawmakers are trying to change the system. In September 2025, Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Seth Magaziner (D-Rhode Island) introduced the Restore Trust in Congress Act in the House, a bipartisan bill to ban members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from owning or trading individual stocks (4). The bill has since attracted more than 125 cosponsors from both parties.
In January 2026, Sens. Ashley Moody (R-Florida) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) introduced a Senate companion version (5), and in March 2026, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Michigan) introduced a separate, broader bill — the No Getting Rich in Congress Act (6) — that would also prohibit stock trading while extending restrictions to the executive branch.
They’re not alone. Sen. Josh Hawley’s HONEST Act passed through a Senate committee in July 2025, and House Republicans advanced their own narrower proposal in early 2026. The result is a crowded field where virtually everyone agrees the system is broken but can’t agree on how to fix it.
Encouraging developments, but seasoned observers have reason to be skeptical. Similar bills have been introduced before, repeatedly, and none have made it to the President’s desk. The pattern is familiar: a wave of public outrage, a flurry of press conferences, and then a quiet death in committee.
Read More: The average net worth of Americans is a surprising $620,654. But it almost means nothing. Here’s the number that counts (and how to make it skyrocket)
What makes the congressional stock trading issue especially concerning isn’t just the principle, it’s the pattern of suspiciously well-timed trades.
The suspicion isn’t just anecdotal. Academic research, including a widely cited NBER working paper, has found that congressional leaders outperform their rank-and-file peers by staggering margins — a pattern difficult to explain without some informational advantage (7).
Over the years, watchdog groups and retail investors have tracked congressional trading activity with increasing scrutiny. Platforms like Capitol Trades and Quiver Quantitative have built entire businesses around monitoring and publishing lawmakers’ financial disclosures in near real-time, while communities like the subreddit r/tradewithcongress have turned congressional trading into something approaching a spectator sport — one where the house always seems to win (8).
The scrutiny cuts across party lines. Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio has become arguably the most famous in Congress, with her returns beating the market by 581% during her time in office. But she’s hardly alone — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s portfolio jumped 476% since she joined Congress. When members on opposite ends of the political spectrum are both dramatically outperforming professional fund managers, it raises questions that transcend partisanship.
Some of the most scrutinized examples in recent years include trades made ahead of major policy announcements, regulatory decisions, and even national security developments. In one widely discussed case, observers on social media raised questions about whether certain congressional trades may have preceded publicly known developments in U.S.-Israeli military operations in the Middle East, specifically regarding defense-sector positions that would benefit from escalating military activity.
None of this proves wrongdoing. Congressional trading disclosures are public records, and correlation between a trade and a subsequent event does not establish that a lawmaker acted on nonpublic information. But the fact that these questions keep arising, and that the existing enforcement framework is toothless, is precisely the problem.
If you’re reading this and feeling frustrated, that’s understandable. But you don’t need Congress to play fair in order to build wealth for yourself.
Here are some practical steps that any reader can take right now.
Build an emergency fund first. Before you invest aggressively, make sure you have three months of essential expenses in a high-yield savings account. This keeps you from being forced to sell investments at a loss during an unexpected expense or job change.
Take advantage of your 401(k) or IRA and actually max it out. Congress may have informational advantages you don’t, but tax-advantaged retirement accounts are an edge available to everyone — and most people leave it on the table. For 2026, the contribution limit for a 401(k) is $24,500 ($32,500 if you’re over 50). For IRAs, it’s $7,500 ($8,600 if you’re over 50). If your employer offers a match, that’s free money. Not contributing enough to capture the full match is one of the most common and most expensive financial mistakes Americans make.
Favor broad index funds over individual stocks. One of the great ironies of the congressional trading debate is that the investment strategy most experts recommend for everyday people is the opposite of what many lawmakers do. Instead of picking individual stocks — a strategy that even professional fund managers fail at more often than not — low-cost index funds that track the S&P 500 or the total stock market give you instant diversification and historically stronger returns.
Stay informed but don’t panic. Congressional trades and political headlines will tempt you to react — don’t. A well-diversified, long-term investment portfolio has historically recovered from every downturn in U.S. market history. The biggest risk for most retail investors isn’t a market crash — it’s pulling out during one. Remove emotion from the equation and automate the contributions to your investment account.
The same Congress that won’t release its own misconduct records and can’t settle on a stock trading ban isn’t going to reform itself anytime soon. But building long-term wealth has never required the same advantages as a senator. It depends on starting early, staying consistent, keeping your costs low, and not letting the news cycle derail your financial plan.
You can’t control what Congress does with its insider knowledge. But you can control your savings rate, your asset allocation, and your decision not to panic when markets get volatile.
That disciplined, unsexy approach has a better track record than most of Capitol Hill’s stock picks — and you don’t need a security clearance to pull it off.
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
—
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines.
NBC News (1); Program for Public Consultation / University of Maryland (2); Business Insider (3); Rep. Chip Roy (4); Sens. Moody and Gillibrand (5); Rep. Haley Stevens (6); NBER (7); r/tradewithcongress (8)
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
